Difference in survival and prognosis between malignant tumors of odontogenic origin - 07/12/24

Doi : 10.1016/j.jormas.2024.102179

Quentin Hennocq ^a,^b,^⁎ , William Pouillot ^a,^b, Chloé Bertolus ^a,^b,^c, Jean-Philippe Foy ^a,^b,^d
^a Sorbonne Université, Paris, France
^b Department of Maxillo-Facial Surgery, Hôpital Pitié-Salpêtrière, Assistance Publique des Hôpitaux de Paris, Paris, France
^c Department of Pathology, Hôpital Pitié-Salpêtrière, Assistance Publique des Hôpitaux de Paris, Paris, France
^d Sorbonne université, INSERM UMRS 938, Centre de Recherche de Saint Antoine, Team Cancer Biology and Therapeutics, France

^⁎Correspondence author at: Sorbonne Université, Department of Maxillo-Facial Surgery, Hôpital Pitié-Salpêtrière, 47-83 boulevard de l'Hôpital, 75013 Paris France.Sorbonne Université, Department of Maxillo-Facial SurgeryHôpital Pitié-Salpêtrière47-83 boulevard de l'Hôpital75013Paris France

Sous presse. Épreuves corrigées par l'auteur. Disponible en ligne depuis le Saturday 07 December 2024
Cet article a été publié dans un numéro de la revue, cliquez ici pour y accéder

Highlights

•	We found no difference in specific survival between malignant tumors of odontogenic origin and metastatic ameloblastoma.
•	Patients with malignant tumors of odontogenic origin treated by surgery showed a better survival.
•	Although metastatic ameloblastoma is a benign tumor, the vital risk remains consequent.

Le texte complet de cet article est disponible en PDF.

Abstract

Introduction

The prognosis of metastatic ameloblastoma (METAM), now defined as a benign tumor, and malignant odontogenic tumors (MOT) is poorly studied in the literature. The aim of this study was to determine the prognosis and factors influencing the survival of these patients.

Material and methods

Using the SEER database, we retrieved clinical data of patients with malignant tumors of dental origin between 1975 and 2020. They include 3 histological groups: metastatic ameloblastoma (METAM), malignant odontogenic tumors (MOT, including odontogenic carcinoma, odontogenic sarcoma, primary intraosseous carcinoma, and ameloblastic carcinoma) and ameloblastic fibrosarcoma (AFS).

Results

On 251 patients, we observed no significant difference in disease-specific survival (DSS) between the three histological groups, with 5-year DSS of 77.4 % (59.9 – 100), 84.0 % (78.7 – 89.7) and 71.1 % (50.7 – 99.7) for METAM, MOT and AFS respectively (p = 0.460). In the MOT group, using a multivariate analysis, surgical treatment appeared to be a protective factor for DSS (HR = 0.483 [0.243 - 0.960], p = 0.038) after taking into account the potential confounding factors mentioned above. No variable significantly influenced DSS in the METAM and AFS group in univariate analysis.

Discussion

We found no difference in specific survival between the three histological groups. Although metastatic ameloblastoma was reclassified as a benign tumor by the WHO in 2017, the vital risk for patients remains consequent, and statistically similar to malignant odontogenic tumors.

Le texte complet de cet article est disponible en PDF.

Keywords : Metastatic ameloblastoma, Malignant odontogenic tumors, Ameloblastic fibrosarcoma, Head and neck neoplasms, Prognosis, Survival